I would like to streamline the implementation of my CAD designs by eliminating the generation of 2D drawings. Is there a best practices convention for doing this in SW? All the sizing and tolerance data is in my 3D model but since the machine shops my company uses don't use SW they don't have access to that data. They want either a fully detailed 2D drawing in dxf format or 3D IGES, STEP or Parasolid to program their Mastercam software. And neither of those 3D file formats carry the tolerances of the features. I've tried using the DimXpert which shows datums and tolerances then publishing an eDrawing of the part, which they can then download the free eDrawing viewer, but DimXpert assigns its' own global tolerance even though I've assigned my own unique tolerance to that feature. And even though I've enabled the measurement option in the eDrawing, no tolerances are attached to the measurement. Any thoughts?

I would love to get rid of, or at least minimze the drawings for machined components, however I haven't been able to yet. I typically create the parts and of the tolerances in the part dimensions as you have described above and then show those exact dimensions in the drawing so I have continuity. I have sent the model to the machinists but find the drawing becomes almost the legal "we require it this way" document.

I know there are a few CAM tools that use the parasolid model and maybe I believe some that read SW parts natively. I have worked with machinists that open the parts in SolidWorks to look at it prior to taking it into the CAM software, but there again I find they still rely on the drawing file for tolerances and runout.

I'm still hoping to get a solution for this. I've been doing this since 1975. The first 13 years were on a drawing board and since then at a computer. It just seems archaic to me to still be generating 2D drawings.

I would think in order to eliminate 2d drawings you would have to work directly with a specific machine shop to reach that ultimate goal. The thing I see as being a problem is that there are too many different software's, too many different versions of each software, too many ways of doing the same things in each software and too many levels of competency. These all add up to a big risk & headache. Where as if you get a print, that eliminates all but the competency and it even minimizes that. There should be no argument if the part is machined wrong. If it's on the print it should be on the part, period.

Heck we can't even get a new release within the same software to work without bugs. Imagine trying to have different software's and versions all translate properly. Who would want to take the responsibility of paying for time and materials hoping that everything works right. You might not even know it didn't work right until the designer/engineer gets the part back and checks it.

It is one of the very annoying quirks of DimXpert that it is its own little world, and totally ignores any work you have done in the rest of Solidworks, so you have to redo any dimensions and tolerances that you have already made, making lots of chances for mistakes to happen. It seems even more absurd that eDrawings won't pick up on the tolerances in DimXpert.